James (et al),
You raise some points that I *do* want to take the time to
acknowledge. Una has done a significant piece of work by putting
together her Biologist's Guide to the Internet, and I am sure that
many biologists have found it to be very useful. Keeping this
completely up-to-date could be a full-time job in itself.
I also have no issue with her initiatives to set up newsgroups. In
fact, in addition to her sci.bio.* groups, she is a co-discussion
leader on bionet.organisms.zebrafish. There is enough work to do on
the Internet to keep many people busy for some time to come.
The thing that annoys me is simply the continual attacks on how
BIOSCI/bionet is run. I could speculate on the motives for doing this
but will not do so here. Suffice it to say that no one in the BIOSCI
organization interferes with initiatives of hers in the sci.bio
hierarchy. Of course, if she has a good idea, such as the
bionet.organisms subdivision, we will adopt it. I suggest that the
way to proceed is to present ideas, and, if they are not accepted, let
it drop. Unfortunately, all too often, our failure to agree leads to
public recriminations or attempts to marshall the troops on opposing
sides. Some of these have been my fault, I'll admit that, but not all
by any means. I would suggest that if an idea is not accepted, the
diplomatic thing to do would be to implement it in sci.bio.* and let
the results speak for themselves (and I do mean let the *results*
speak for themselves).
Sincerely,
Dave Kristofferson
BIOSCI/bionet Manager
biosci-help at net.bio.net